Posts Tagged ‘Labour’

I’m going to be honest: in the last few years I’ve been a member of more political parties than most people would in their entire lives. My still hopeful ideals have always been based on my moral compass; and I thought it’d be wise to explain where I’m coming from, and most definitely why I know the compass keeps pointing back to Social Liberalism.

I apologise for sounding cosy with a utopian beginnings to my political “career”, as I fear this is what every politician has scribbled at the beginning of their auto-biographies (more likely by a ghostwriter than anyone else). However, I swear it’s the truth.

It began around Autumn/Winter 2007, after reading leaflets on the Socialist Party. As Christmas came, certain news programmes made the daily struggle of the homeless and others around the world feel even more personal. So I got involved, and it was quite fun; regular Saturday stalls on the busy Lincoln High Street, intense debate every week. It was all incredibly fun.

I got in touch with other parties with similar aims, and in all honesty I was shocked. They all had petty differences. They all had their reasons why their brand of “socialism” was the best. And this is where I came across my first major problem with the concept (or more accurately, how these parties organised): the arrogance that the world would be better with Socialism. Then what? Of course I understand it would be decided by the people. The Communist Manifesto goes into great detail about how 90% of the worlds population is exploited to provide wealth to the top 10%. And this was in the late 1800s!!

But there is a very real “holier than thou” attitude. No one is right other than themselves. There was no room for compromise; evidenced by the huge number of left-wing parties that exist. So I joined the one united workers party: the Labour Party. However, this didn’t last very long. They treat their members as nothing more than a free advertising agency. If there is democracy within the party, it isn’t obvious.

A world where class didn’t exist and everyone had access to the same wealth and land is, in all honesty, an image we should never leave from our heads. It should be the ultimate goal of humanity. However, the first lesson I learned was that a revolution couldn’t morally work. The second you take land, property and status from someone else by force, who’s to say you won’t become the dictators yourselves? Arguably, countries that have attempted to embrace socialism (although I don’t believe pure socialism has ever existed in the world) have been so democratic that certain forces such as Stalin and Mao, still obsessed with the trappings of power, were able to come to power and effectively turn their countries into even worse states akin to feudalism.

It wasn’t long after this that I had a bit of a breakdown. People who know my mental health work will also know this breakdown fueled my desire to help others even more. There are serious inadequacies with mental health services in England that quite clearly need more people speaking out about them. Interestingly, Americans call our healthcare system “socialised”, though more accurately I’d say it’s actually more like a dictatorship. But anyway.

My political leanings then shifted, initially to the Green Party. I never joined but I got involved in some discussions after being hugely interested in the Green, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth movements, and extremely inspired by the climate change protest march at the end of 2009, the Green Party arguably have some of the best policies this side of the political spectrum. Also, the Transition Town movement was in a way a form of local, voluntary socialism. Or rather, Social Liberalism.

It was initially the policies on political reform, then readings on Social Liberalism that brought me finally to the Liberal Democrats. It is the writings of John Stuart Mill‘s “On Liberty” that probably best encapsulates the basic thoughts on liberalism

“…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

I would argue social liberalism stems from this principle of harm. Rather than being what the Americans call “freedom” (which appears to include freedom not to help the worst off, and for those making a profit and working hard not having to carry the burden of the rest of society), Social Liberalism is based on the idea that the good and freedom of the community goes along with the freedom of the individual. Whereas Socialism arrogantly imposes its ideology on the masses in the name of equality, and capitalism arrogantly exploits the masses in the name of freedom, Social Liberalism provides a balanced education, health, justice, and social care system that provides the skills and ideas each person needs to live in this world, picks them up if they fall ill or through the gaps of society, then lets them make their own mind up.

Wealth is one of the biggest killers in the world. There’s nothing majorly wrong with money as an incentive system for work and purchasing their goods. But wages clearly do not reflect the work people put into their jobs. For example, why should nurses be paid less than doctors, when they’re doing more of the work and cleaning more of the shit up? If nurses jumped ship, our hospitals would be in a very desperate state indeed.

However, my sentiments are that the public deciding each other as equals cannot be dictated. We should do all we can to make it illegal for any company to hire any work in the world for under the British minimum wage. But my thoughts echo a man named Osho, who was a well known Buddhist who moved to America. That socialism and anarchism are the perfect forms of government; however humanity is not ready for it. It needs to come from the inside, as a choice based on ones moral compass. That’s why I’d rather call it voluntary socialism, as it would be a socialism where everyone offered to pool their resources to better the human race. It’ll take an eternity, but we can’t force it.

And when it does happen, those who disagree can fuck off to some other planet.

Yesterday I made some attempts to talk about the parliamentary reform the Liberal Democrats would like to make, and how this reform might look like. Today I’d like to suggest how a new House of Lords might look like, fully elected by the public.

The first part is this house would do exactly what it says on the tin; the public would vote for the party they want in the house, rather than a candidate. When all the votes are counted, seats would then be allocated based on the percentage of votes; for is Labour fielded 30% of the votes, they would gain 30% of the seats; if the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition gained 4% of the votes they would get 4% of the seats, and so on. At this point I would probably rename the house to something more accurate, like the House of Senators… although if for historical reasons the public wanted to keep it as the House of Lords, then that is fine with me. As long as it has no affect on democracy in this country then I am not too fussed.

As an extension, what I find interesting with an elected upper house like this is that there would not necessarily be a need for political parties in the lower house anymore. Political parties could be banned from the lower house, or allowed providing they do not overstep the power of their constituents to have a say on laws, or agree or disagree with them.

It would also provide a separation of powers, with the House of Lords acting as the executive and the House of Commons acting as the legislature. Although just because the executive would be based in the Lords, it would not mean that the Lords should be given anymore power. It should be left as it is, with most of the power lying in the Commons. It would then be the duty of political parties, not only to appeal to the United Kingdom as a whole, but to appeal to the representatives of the constituencies of the United Kingdom who will make laws on a daily basis.

I should probably avoid speculation as to what happens after the election and focus my energies on getting as much support for the party. However, I would hope that, rather than make a decision on their own, the leaders of the Liberal Democrat party will hold a referendum to it’s members as to which party to side with and form a coalition government.

Building up from that, I would also like to see the party encourage/enforce debate between Labour, The Conservatives, The Lib Dems and the smaller parties. The priority should of course be electoral reform. However, I would like to see an element based on hand-picking the best people for the job in terms of ministerial appointments, and explicitly encouraging a politics based on consensus rather than competition.

How would we achieve this? I think the first part would be putting in place the single transferable vote and/or proportional representation, as well as making the House of Lords entirely elected. The second part would be to change the focus of this coalition term to cleaning up politics. Make explicit requirements for MPs to publish expenses, and to be accountable to constituents first if a certain number vote (either online or through petitions) against the putting in place of certain laws in Parliament. MPs should be accountable to constituents before their party whips.

In my opinion, the final part would be a complete overhaul of the House of Lords into a House entirely elected by the public through proportional representation; I will detail in my next blog post tomorrow how such a system might work.

I have to say, I was absolutely amazed with how the debate went last week. Although in my heart of hearts I knew Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had a message that was fresh and different to the two parties who have held a monopoly on our government for over 60 years, in all honesty I never expected him to be taken as seriously as the public had done.

Now both the Conservatives and Labour are changing their battle plans, from appearing friendly to the yellow party to becoming more hostile and questioning. I think just for our party to actually be in a position where “Labservative” are analysing every detail is a huge achievement in itself, and shouldn’t be seen with caution as it shows for the first time in a very long time we are actually being taken seriously by the establishment.

However, if Gordon and David are too hostile I believe it will show the cracks in going red and blue even more. Not only will it show that they can’t keep to one firm manifesto and campaign, but I believe the public will actually rally in support of the bullying of Nick. This is bearing in mind the viewing figures will be much lower for the next debate anyway, seeing as Sky News is not a terrestrial channel.

You only have to look over to our chums in the US-of-A to see a very different story to the one you see here. You get the impression that politics over there really has become a competition of performers, rather than would-be presidents. The party with the glitziest campaigns, the best-looking candidates and (obviously) the most money has a huge possibility in getting to the hearts of the nation and becoming elected.

Sadly, I also understand this is how British politics is turning.

Although I do believe it is an important step in trying to engage the country with politics. And while I look in horror at a House of Parliament that looks more like schoolboys trying to get one-over each other than actually caring about it’s constituents, you can certainly say it’s entertaining. Plus it will get the message out so people can see the policies and beliefs of the Liberal Democrat Party. The only party that wants to take power away and give it to the people when it comes to power.